9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was pleased to accept this plea and hence dismissed the complaint, passed an order of discharge and recalled the process. 3. The complainant, no doubt, is a company registered under the Companies Act. Section 142 of the said Act will have to be borne in mind, as under the said section, only a payee or a holder in due course can file a complaint. The cheque being in favour of the complainant company, this requirement is fulfilled. However, the point raised by the respondent-accused was as to the lodging of the complaint by Mr. R. Srinivasan describing himself to be the manager of the complainant-company. The heading or the title of the complaint with regard to the parties, particularly with reference to the complainant reads as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 24-2-1998 against the said application for discharge etc. that the said Mr. R. Srinivasan is an authorised manager under the resolution. He has brushed aside this stand by saying that it seems to be an after thought and there is no proof on record in support of the same. 9. The learned Magistrate is carried away more by the fact that the authorisation is neither produced along with the complaint nor at the time of taking cognizance and even till date that the said application is considered. It is obvious that the matter was not at the stage of proof and if at that stage no evidence was produced as to the authorisation, dismissal of complaint on that count could well be understood. Inspite of there being Bombay judgment reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord and arguments is based thereon that the company has not filed the complaint through its authorised person. Like the said Bombay case the factum of directorship was found to be unchallenged so is the factum of managership going unchallenged in the instant case. Obviously, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable. 12. On this point alone, the matter could have been allowed and disposed of in favour of the complainant. However it is accepted that the amount involved is to the tune of ₹ 1,45,76,000/- coupled with discount charged and overdue interest. On both sides various authorities were cited to support the judgment. Mr. Hegde appearing for the accused respondent thus cited (1997(4) Andhra Pradesh M.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition came to be dismissed. One more decision cited is that of the Supreme Court reported in Ballabhdas Agarwala v. J.C.Chokerwarty . It pertains to a matter under Calcutta Municipal Act 3 of 1923. The municipality had filed a complaint for adulterated articles and conviction was challenged amongst other grounds on the fact that the complainant officer was not duly empowered in that behalf under section 12 of the said Municipal Act. Considering this aspect two of the learned Judges of the three Judges Bench held that in absence of authorisation, complaint itself is non existence and therefore the conviction could not be sustained. 14. However, as could be seen from the said judgment, this being a statutory provision, especially when i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... One of the points urged on behalf of the accused is that the Divisional Sales Manager who had filed the complaint on behalf of the company was not competent to file the same. Agreeing with the view of the Bombay High Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that when the instructions were given to the Sales Manager by the head office of the company to file the complaint, the officer was competent to file the same. In fact view of the Bombay High Court was that the complainant one Mr. Atul Mathur being in the rank of Manager he could validly act on behalf of the company. With reference to the Power of Attorney conferred upon the said company Mr. Atul Mathur disagreeing with the view of the Bombay High Court in para 21 at page 526 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly held that the complaint admittedly filed by director and an officer of the bank not having been filed in his individual capacity is to be understood as a complaint by the bank. I respectfully agree with that view. 21. About the submission that it would not be a mere irregularity but a material irregularity if there is no authorisation from the beginning on behalf of the respondent-accused it was sought to be equated with sanction to be given before prosecution thus need various statutory provisions. Bombay High Court decision given under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 reported in State of Maharashtra v. Pankaj A. Gupta, 1995 (1) Crimes page 203, was vest into service for the purpose. Two more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
